High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 26.5.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners in Writ B No.8853 of 1984 is taken on record.

Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.P. Rai, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents in Writ B No.8853 of 1984.

3. Heard Sri V.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents in Writ B No.10560 of 1984.

4. Since common issues are involved in both the petitions, same are being disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in Writ B No.8853 of 1984 shall be treated as the leading petition.

5. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1-Bramh Singh is chak holder no.101, petitioner no.2-Jagmer Singh is chak holder no.54, respondent no.3-Om Prakash is chak holder no.21, respondent no.4-Bhawar Singh is chak holder no.126. Respondent no.4-Bhawar Singh is petitioner of Writ B No.10560 of 1984. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed by the tenure holders which were decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated

29.3.1982. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner no.2 filed chak appeal which was registered as Appeal No.2559/231/5223. Private respondents have also filed chak appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer. All the appeals were consolidated and heard together. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 15.9.1983 allowed the appeals in part by which the chak of the petitioners were affected, accordingly, petitioners filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.1204. Private respondents have also filed their revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. All the revisions were clubbed and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated

15.9.1983 allowed all the revisions in part vide order 26.5.1984, setting aside the appellate order dated 26.5.1984. Hence, Writ 2 B No.8853 of 1984 has been filed by Bramh Singh and Jagmer Singh for the following relief:- “For the reasons given above and facts disclosed in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order, Annexure No.III pertaining to petitioner no.1 and II and III-A pertaining to petitioner no.2 passed by opposite party nos.1 & 2 and issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. Writ B No.10560 of 1984 has been filed by Bhawar Singh for the following relief:- “issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judgment and order dated 26.5.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure No.6) and also the judgment and order dated 15.9.1983 passed by the S.O.C. (Annexure No.4) in part which is against the petitioner in allotting the first chak to the petitioner.”

6. This Court admitted Writ B No.8853 of 1984 on 10.7.1984 and the operation of the impugned orders of the revisional court was stayed as well as dispossession of the petitioners was stayed if the dispossession has already not taken place.

7. Writ B No.10560 of 1984 was admitted and connected with Writ B No.8853 of 1984 vide order dated 13.8.1984. In Writ B No.8853 of 1984, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 3

8. Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ B No.8853 of 1984 submitted that stage of the Deputy Director of Consolidation be maintained. He placed the averment made in paragraph nos. 7 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 26.5.2025 which reads as under:- “7. That in these facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept the said supplementary rejoinder affidavit and the said writ petition be disposed of with the direction that the parties maintain the position of the D.D.C. stage with regard to possession and area of the plots allotted to them or may pass such other and further order as Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

9. Mr. V.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in Writ B No.8853 of 1984 as well as for petitioner in Writ B No.10560 of 1984, submitted that the impugned orders as challenged in Writ B No.10560 of 1984 should be set aside and the petitioners’ claim should be allowed in order to accommodate the petitioner Bhawar Singh on his original plot according to his share.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding.

12. Both the parties are challenging the same impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding. Petitioners of Writ B No.8853 of 1984 4 submitted that stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation be maintained.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the allotment of chak proceeding considering the fact that petitioners of Writ B No.8853 of 1984 are interested in maintaining the Deputy Director of Consolidation stage.

14. Both the writ petitions are dismissed, without making any interference with the impugned orders, passed by the consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding and the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation is maintained.

15. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 5 CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad